Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

#152 Aug 25 2005 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fuucking hate labels


I have that problem with the concept of the "hate crime".
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#153 Aug 25 2005 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
**
365 posts
Quote:
Too long to read. The title said all I need to know.


then you must have ADD
anyway should read it is very good information u may learn something
#154 Aug 25 2005 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,889 posts
Eske wrote:
Quote:
While I understand why the term "date rape" came about, I don't like it. I don't think we should distiguish between types of rape. Rape is rape. Just because one girl may know her attacker and another girl is getting jumped at night on her way to her car doesn't make the end result any different.

labels, labels, I fuucking hate labels


I have that problem with the concept of the "hate crime".


Same here. Crime is crime, idiots are idiots. Punish the action, not the opinion.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#155 Aug 26 2005 at 10:04 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,618 posts
As the boys from South Park put it, "Hate crime - a moral hypocrisy". It was a season 4 episode I think, "Cartman's Silly Little Hate Crime".
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#156 Aug 26 2005 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I have a problem with much of the "hate crime" concept as well but I don't think they compare. There's a number of laws which make hate crimes an additional charge (i.e. burning down a mosque vs burning down an office) but date rape cases are still legally tried as a rape charge.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Aug 26 2005 at 2:22 PM Rating: Default
24 posts
i love the title. lol that got my attention, but then i saw it was really long
____________________________
Name: popcorn
Server: odin
Jobs: blm 74 whm,smn,rdm 37
Crafts: WW 93 GS 59 CC 52 LW 60 C 31 AL 60 SM 60
#158 Aug 27 2005 at 8:22 AM Rating: Decent
1 post
I don't want to piss anyone off, and I generally try to get along with everyone, but from what I read (first 2 pages) of this thread it seems like a bunch of females taking their anger out on a male because they don't want to believe what logic dictates.

It is simple.

A good friend of mine had a saying. One of purely comedic value, a parody of the subject if you will. It is NOT meant as literal truth, though I expect to be flamed for posting it anyway. There is some small truth to it anyhow.

The saying? "There is no such thing as rape. A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down."

Granted, it's a very sexist and politically incorrect joke, and I don't personally agree with it. Yet there is a grain of truth.

Example. The situation mentioned earlier in which a woman is on a date and threatened with being stranded somewhere far from home if she refuses a sexual act with the driver. If she chooses to perform a sexual act, it is not physical rape. It is coercion. Were she to refuse and be forced (physicaly - forced to have to find an alternate way home doesn't count) to consent then the story would be different. As it is, she makes a choice.

The choice is simple too. She has three options. 1. Perform tha act without protest. 2. Find an alternate ride home and avoid a sexual act entirely. And 3. Protest the act, and if it is forced, to then act until she can get a grip on the pervert's balls, squeeze hard and drag him out of the car naked.

There are other choices as well, but these are the most obvious. Many of these might provoke the pervert into physical (forced) rape. But the threat of rape is NOT the same as actual rape and should never be treated as such.

If the woman in the example were to agree to the sexual act, even as a relult of mere threat, then she has not been physically raped. Perhaps phycologically raped, or mentally, but not physically. The logic is simple because it is sound. I can threaten whatever I want, and that threat may indeed be a crime. Pulling a gun on someone is illegal, threatening to take the life of another at gunpoint is a crime as well, but that crime is NOT rape. Any time a man puts his penis near an unwilling mouth expecting a blowjob, he is endangering his very manhood. Women have teeth. Women have the power.

I'm a completely non violent person, and would never hurt anyone, but the subject at hand has nothing to do with personal politics or beliefs. The definition of rape HAS been redefined in this sickeningly politically correct society, and the only effect is that rape victims themselves suffer more as a result, and that pretentious sluts have an easy-out to use on a whim.

I'm not saying that it's not possible to avoid leaving physical evidence in the event of a physical rape, but that as long as there's a choice to be made (any choice to be made that would avoid a non-consentual sexual act) then it's not rape. Charge the criminal with the correct crime at least.

My $0.02
#159 Aug 27 2005 at 8:38 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
BBC Online wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women feel more vindictive than men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________
LOOK here.
#160 Aug 27 2005 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Pulling a gun on someone is illegal, threatening to take the life of another at gunpoint is a crime as well, but that crime is NOT rape
It is if you're using it to threaten the woman into having sex and it has been for at least the last fifty years in this state.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#161 Aug 27 2005 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,227 posts
This thread has become a perfect example of times where you hit "Reply to thread", then just hit the "back" button, because it's just not worth it.

Yes, I was originally going to argue some more. But why bother.
#162 Aug 27 2005 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Your post count weeps for you, Nadenu Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#163 Aug 27 2005 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,227 posts
I'm on a crusade to catch up to you.

by 2012
#164 Aug 27 2005 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,889 posts
Quote:
The saying? "There is no such thing as rape. A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down."


Wow, you're stupid.

Tell you what: when some fella 40 pounds heavier and much stronger than you decides to hold you down and fu[/i]ck you against your will, but doesn't leave bruises or use a gun on you, come on back here and tell us whether or not you were raped. K?

Until then, shut your ignorant fu[i]
cking pie hole and get the fu[i][/i]ck out of my house.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#165 Aug 27 2005 at 10:17 AM Rating: Default
**
535 posts
Duchess SamiraX wrote:
Quote:
The saying? "There is no such thing as rape. A woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down."


Wow, you're stupid.

Tell you what: when some fella 40 pounds heavier and much stronger than you decides to hold you down and fu[/i]ck you against your will, but doesn't leave bruises or use a gun on you, come on back here and tell us whether or not you were raped. K?

Until then, shut your ignorant fu[i]
cking pie hole and get the fu[i][/i]ck out of my house.


Posting from rikers island?
____________________________
Quote:
Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash
#166 Aug 27 2005 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,705 posts
Here is an interesting article on this subject.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/12529-4.asp

Particularly sanguine to the above discussion would be the following:

Quote:
People invent allegations of sexual assault for reasons that should be regarded as criminal and despicable. One study showed that over a 9-year period, up to 16% of sexual assault allegations in one sexual assault examination center were shown after police investigation to be false allegations. Authorities, people accused of sexual assault, victims of sexual assault, and the perpetrators of false allegations should be aware that the possibility of a false allegation will be considered during the investigation of an assault.

In most cases of real sexual assault, ample evidence of the assault will exist. In cases of false accusations, it is equally likely that there will be clear signs that the accusation is false. Making false accusations is a crime.


Another article, which highlights the changes over time to the definition or rape:

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf

and one that highlights the specific changes to law:

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761564013__1/Rape_(law).html

including a definition of date rape, which is very similar to the one presented earlier in this thread:

Quote:
An acquaintance may commit forcible rape. However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.


and the explicit notice that:
Quote:
As the legal definition of rape has expanded, more sexual acts count as rape.


Regarding the notion that a rape accusation should just be "dealt with" and has no real negative outcome, I offer this quote
Quote:
When the UKMM submitted an earlier petition in 1999 on false allegations, we quoted the that two completely innocent men had hung themselves in the space of two years as a result of being maliciously accused of rape.


From this petition to a Scottish court:
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/camp/rapealleg.htm

Anyhow, since there seems to be a strong bias toward providing proof, or citations to make a point, I figured I would make my inaugural post to this thread with that in mind.





Edited, Sat Aug 27 12:40:18 2005 by xaanru
____________________________
Xaanru's stuff
#167 Aug 27 2005 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not sure what the first quote is supposed to represent. Filing false reports is a crime. It should be reported as a crime and treated as a crime. I don't think anyone here is arguing anything different.

xaanru wrote:
including a definition of date rape, which is very similar to the one presented earlier in this thread:

An acquaintance may commit forcible rape. However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.
I'm not sure how you interpret that but it sounds to me more like it's covering aspects of nonconsentual, nonforceful rape like drugging or heavily intoxicating which is a common theme in date rape cases but not all that common in your back-alley or parking garage scenarios.

xaanru wrote:
and the explicit notice that:
As the legal definition of rape has expanded, more sexual acts count as rape.
Which proves? That's in the conclusion of the entire section on rape, not anything particular to date rape. For example, the beginning of the section states:
In all states, if a man forcibly subjects a woman who is not his wife to sexual intercourse against her will, he has committed the crime of rape. Recently, an increasing number of states have extended the definition of rape to include certain nonconsensual incidents of intercourseeven if force was not involvedand the rape of ones spouse. In other states, rape remains narrowly defined as forcible sexual intercourse, but separate statutes address other forms of sexual assault, including nonconsensual (but unforced) sexual intercourse and unwanted sexual activity other than intercourse.

Previously, marital rape was not illegal. Sex with a woman too intoxicated to give consent wasn't illegal. Oral sex wasn't always considered rape (per the OP). Until recently, inserting foreign objects into the vagina/anus against the person's will was considered assault but not rape. None of which has anything to do with the term "date rape" expanding anything so much as a general expansion of which nonconsentual sexual acts are considered rape.

Quote:
When the UKMM submitted an earlier petition in 1999 on false allegations, we quoted the that two completely innocent men had hung themselves in the space of two years as a result of being maliciously accused of rape.
Gbaji would argue they were no doubt guilty of something Smiley: laugh

[sm]Nevermind... joke referring to another thread[/i]
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Aug 27 2005 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
3,705 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure what the first quote is supposed to represent.


Quote:
up to 16% of sexual assault allegations in one sexual assault examination center were shown after police investigation to be false allegations.

In most cases of real sexual assault, ample evidence of the assault will exist. In cases of false accusations, it is equally likely that there will be clear signs that the accusation is false.


First, that false reports are pretty common. Second that there is usually clear evidence distinguishing between consentual sex and rape.

Quote:
I'm not sure how you interpret that but it sounds to me more like it's covering aspects of nonconsentual, nonforceful rape like drugging or heavily intoxicating


Yes it would include those, but note that it would explicitly EXCLUDE the earlier examples of threatening someone with a knife at their throat, or threats against their children.

Quote:
Which proves? That's in the conclusion of the entire section on rape, not anything particular to date rape.


No but one of the articles does mention a shift to a doctrine in which the woman must EXPLICITLY and verbally inform their partner of consent. This also relates to the concept of post hoc denial of consent, which IMO, is terrifying. A person can be an active, enthusiastic partner in a sexual encounter. If the following day they regret it, then, if they did not explicitly say "have intercourse with me" then they can claim that they were not consenting.

The only real problem, is that when dealing with rape charges, there is a reversal of the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. As in the case of the OP, police ASSUME the victim is telling the truth, which can lead to harm to the accused, even in cases where there is ABSOLUTELY no truth to the charges. Plus, in the cases where the police do not unequivocally prove the innocence of the accused, but fail to find evidence linking them, they are left with a stigma, that might lead to actions such as those taken by the two youths in the last quote I had in my last post.

The law has gone from a point where the accused was given TOO MUCH protection, to one where they have too little.
____________________________
Xaanru's stuff
#169 Aug 27 2005 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,310 posts
I love to watch men argue with each other about women getting raped, or having babies, or the best choice of birth control, etc.

Perhaps we gals should start a thread about the heartbreak of an enlarged prostate.
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#170 Aug 27 2005 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
xaanru wrote:
First, that false reports are pretty common. Second that there is usually clear evidence distinguishing between consentual sex and rape.
Which should make false reports that much easier to ferret out and punish.

Quote:
Yes it would include those, but note that it would explicitly EXCLUDE the earlier examples of threatening someone with a knife at their throat, or threats against their children.
An acquaintance may commit forcible rape. However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.

Obviously, we have widely differing ideas of what the word "usually" means if you think it explicitly excludes threat of force.

Yanari wrote:
I love to watch men argue with each other about women getting raped, or having babies, or the best choice of birth control, etc.

Perhaps we gals should start a thread about the heartbreak of an enlarged prostate.
I encourage you to if you feel you have something to say about it.

I'm more worried about women who feel certain issues are their exclusive baliwick to discuss than I am about women discussing male anatomy. The former is what helps lead to mindsets like Gbaji expressed in his initial postings. The latter might just help someone learn something.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#171 Aug 27 2005 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
I think I just trolled Jophiel! Smiley: wink2
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#172 Aug 27 2005 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Probably. Smiley: grin

I'm in a grumbly mood tonight 'cause I can't play the City of Villans beta due to my dial-up connection unless I want to wait on a 120 hour download Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Aug 27 2005 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,188 posts
Joph, have you tried a ritualistic sacrafice? Say a chicken, first born child, loved one, or community leader?


just sayin'
____________________________
Leondol
75 WHM PUP COR
Ifrit Server
French Toast and Pop-Tarts
#174 Aug 27 2005 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,227 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Probably. Smiley: grin

I'm in a grumbly mood tonight 'cause I can't play the City of Villans beta due to my dial-up connection unless I want to wait on a 120 hour download Smiley: dubious


Aww... the Princess has had her wings clipped!

omg can you fly??
#175 Aug 27 2005 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,528 posts

What thread can't benefit from a little use of bailiwick?


____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#176 Aug 28 2005 at 12:03 AM Rating: Default
**
535 posts
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
I love to watch men argue with each other about women getting raped, or having babies, or the best choice of birth control, etc.

Perhaps we gals should start a thread about the heartbreak of an enlarged prostate.


Bitches usually dont get arrested over false accusations of an enlarged prostate

Edited, Sun Aug 28 01:15:32 2005 by proofeleven
____________________________
Quote:
Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash
#177 Aug 28 2005 at 4:23 AM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
I thought you lived near Chicago. Don't they have crazy things like DSL, cable modems and satellite connection options for you folks yet, or are you really living in the wilderness?
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#178 Aug 28 2005 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, they have them of course. But 98% of my home net usage is here, another forum and EQ. I have a real hard time justifying paying $40+ a month for cable/DSL just so I can read Allakhazam.com.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Aug 29 2005 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Can't believe this thread is still going on...

Jophiel wrote:


An acquaintance may commit forcible rape. However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.

Obviously, we have widely differing ideas of what the word "usually" means if you think it explicitly excludes threat of force.


*cough* You're missing the point here Joph. The above definition is almost *exactly* what I defined "date rape" to be.

How many times did I say you guy were arguing the exception and not the rule? And here you are doing it again. "usually", date rape is *not* violent, but apparently because it can be violent sometimes it's ok to treat all instances of "date rape" the same. My whole argument has been that this methodology is flawed and is the reason our legal systems more easily falsly accuse men of rape.


My whole argument has been that rape is rape. I have never at any point advocated lessening the punishment for rape. What I've argued against was the redefining of rape that we've seen in the last 20 years such that accusations like the one in the OP occur more frequently. And it's not just changes in the law. It's changes in perception and labeling. And the term "date rape" is certainly part of that change. By including non-physical coersion in the "rape" category, they open the door to many more false allegations.

And finally, these changes do *nothing* to increase the likelyhood that a rapist will be convicted of a crime. That's ultimately the real problem here. What we've done is make it easier to charge someone with a crime of rape, but in the cases I'm arguing about (cases where there are no witnesses and no physical signs that a rape occured), the case becomes purely a matter of one person's word against another. I'm sure you'll agree that in an ideal world, someone can't be convicted of a crime just because someone says they did it, right?

And that's what you're missing. You keep ignoring what I actually say and running off on different tangents. I'm simply saying that in those cases where there is no physical sign of rape, there will be no increased chance of convicting someone of rape. Thus, changing the laws to make it easier to press charges in those cases only accomplishes the goal of increasing the number of men falsely accused. This isn't some crazy idea. It's just simple logic. I'm not talking about violent rape against a spouse. I never brought that up. You did. I'm not talking about people drugged and abducted and raped. If it can be shown that the sexual act was against someone's will then it's rape, right? You're inventing cases that I'm not arguing against. All of those are rape. I'm talking strictly about cases where there is *no* evidence that a rape has occured. Just like in the OP. And I'm presenting and opinion that the reason our legal systems are more likely to charge men with crimes in those cases is a direct result of the "date rape" movement in the mid 90s.


Geez. I didn't think it was that amazingly controversial of a statement to make. Seemed obvious to me that changes in our laws about rape charges would be the cause of changes in false accusation of rape. Silly me for making such a basic observation...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#180 Aug 29 2005 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
And I said a couple days ago that "does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape" was more probably related to cases of drugging/intoxication which are uncommon in random rape than it was likely to relate to "she changed her mind". Apparently, you didn't see the part saying "nonconsentual", i.e. "she willingly had sex but decided later that she regretted it" doesn't fit anywhere into the definition.

Thanks for missing the point though.

Edited, Mon Aug 29 19:08:01 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#181 Aug 29 2005 at 8:52 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And I said a couple days ago that "does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape" was more probably related to cases of drugging/intoxication which are uncommon in random rape than it was likely to relate to "she changed her mind". Apparently, you didn't see the part saying "nonconsentual", i.e. "she willingly had sex but decided later that she regretted it" doesn't fit anywhere into the definition.

Thanks for missing the point though.


Huh!?

However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.


You're arguing apples and oranges Joph. So what if your case isn't excluded by that definition. The point isn't whether or not you can find a case that doesn't match mine but which can match this definition. The point is whether or not the set of cases I disagree with as "rape" fit inside that definition. That's the argument I've been making, and that's what you *still* haven't come close to addressing.


Does that definition include or not include cases where a woman choses to have sex with someone for convenience or as a result of some coersion ("have sex with me and I'll invite you to the cool parties", or "have sex with me or I'll make you walk home"...) and then regrets it?


Yes or no. If yes, then my initial argument is correct. Our definition of "date rape" includes conditions that are *not* rape in any traditional sense. I have never once in this topic argued that drugging someone and raping them is not rape. Unless I'm mistaken, drugging someone and humping their unconscious form is still "physical", right? The drug affects your body just like violence will, and will leave evidence of its use. How exactly is that different then clubbing her over the head and raping her? It's still rape. I've never argued anything different.


What I have argued against from the beginning is that along the way, we've added in cases for "rape" which don't require *any* physical violence at all. No drugging. No beating. No knive to the throat. Not even threats of violence. Simple coersion. No different then that of an insurance salesman (IIRC, this was the first analogy I used). That's the change in the subject that I have a problem with. And that is undoubtably included in the standard definition of "date rape".


I know your not really this dense Joph. Just answer the question. Is the set of conditions I described included in the definition of "acquaintance rape" I quoted above? It's an easy question...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#182 Aug 29 2005 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Does that definition include or not include cases where a woman choses to have sex with someone for convenience or as a result of some coersion ("have sex with me and I'll invite you to the cool parties", or "have sex with me or I'll make you walk home"...) and then regrets it?
No. Willingly having sex and then regreting it is not the definition of "nonconsensual sex". I said I didn't think threat of abandonment constituted threat of force and said so several pages back. Whether or not anyone else is arguing it is between you and them. On the other hand, I've yet to see a legal definition of rape that included "was willing but regretted". I've yet to see a legal definition of rape that included "threat of abandonment". Even the modified Illinois rape law still said that rape was a result of force or threat of force. Not "threat of not going to parties" or "threat of being left alone". Again, you have me wondering if you understand what the word "nonconsensual" means. Because there's nothing to indicate that any judge would take "had sex to go to cool parties and regretted it later" as nonconsensual.

You keep crying that someone in the above scenario would be legally guilty of rape but have yet to provide a law showing such. Find me a law where the above scenario falls into its definition and I might say you have a point. Until then you can't cry that "date rape" has changed the legal landscape to a point where the above scenario is significant in any legal way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#183 Aug 29 2005 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
I'm with you gbaji.....

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf states:

Quote:
A higher conviction rate can be accomplished by making mens rea irrelevant to the crime, thereby redefining rape as a new breed of strict liability offense. As Professor Susan Estrich observes, To refuse to inquire in mens rea . . . [may turn] rape into a strict liability offense where, in the absence of consent, the man is guilty of rape regardless of whether he (or anyone) would have recognized nonconsent in the circumstances.

{{clear enough}}

LDF proponents have asserted that incidents in which the victim herself has not labeled the experience a rape can be validly criminalized.

The difficulty arises, however, when the putative victims nonconsent is presumed for example, because she was intoxicated. Some LDF proponents contend that women are incapable of consenting to sexual activity whenever they are under the influence of alcohol. Consider, for example, a setting in which both parties have become voluntarily intoxicated. In the course of sexual activity, the man may reasonably believe that the woman wants to engage in intercourse in light of her words and deeds. If afterwards the woman comes to think and contend that she did not consent to this sexual contact, most people would oppose finding the mans behavior felonious. A number of LDF proponents, however, would categorize this as rape. Such a position amounts to transforming rape into a strict liability offense.

{{so, going to a party and picking up a drunk girl (even when drunk ourselves) is now rape}}

A second type of serious problem ensues from the way in which LDF seeks to reconstruct the legal import of the womans consent. If a man brings forth a gun or knife, regardless of whether the womanthen verbally agrees to intercourse, her behavior would presumably be that of someone under duress. Hence, the mans guilt would be a proper inference in the factfinders determination. Problems arise, however, when the situation is consistent with two opposite meanings, e.g., no weapon, but the pair are alone in the woods. {{bingo!!}} Perhaps the silent woman is afraid to object; perhaps her consent is unvoiced. Many of the cases that LDF points to as horrible miscarriages of justice fall into this latter scenario. However, such a characterization of these cases rests on the assumption that the womans complaint is valid. Absent this unsupported assumption, one could readily infer either consent or non-consent. Provided the mans testimony is plausible, however, it is difficult without further evidence, such as how they got there or their prior amorous interactions, to determine whether there is consent, much less to infer guilt. This is the underlying reason that the elements of rape are defined so narrowly e.g., requiring force.

{{Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to have been gbaji's point!}}

Once one removes these parameters, the definition of the felony becomes wildly over-inclusive. For instance, if consent required express verbal speech acts on the part of the woman, there would probably be hundreds of times as many acts defined as rape as there are today. Only after a cultural change in which such verbal statements become effectively universal would it make sense to use silenceor even rhetorical "nos" as one per se element of the felony.

Rather than recognizing that its definition of rape is radically overbroad, LDF in effect criticizes the women involved for false consciousness. For instance, one leading feminist scholar specializing in the so-called "date rape" issue expressly states that the majority of raped college students did not realize at the time that they were raped. Others potentially falling in this category would be wives who think that their husbands cannot rape them, and those who have sex while inebriated, because, as some assert, women cannot consent in this state. Presuming that after sexual intercourse such a woman was persuaded that her contemporaneous view was false and that she really did not consent, that woman could truthfully testify at trial that she now believes that she did not consent when the sexual intercourse occurred. Her sexual partner could then be lawfully imprisoned as a felon.

Eliminating any mens rea requirement would surely raise the
conviction rate toward the ninety-eight percent benchmark. By definition, if the woman testified at trial that she currently believes that she did not contemporaneously consent, the man would have to be found guilty.


Yes.....I read the whole article!!

This seems to be exactly what you are arguing...
Let me know if you're arguing a different point!!

Everyone has a choice in life....but I am increasingly aware of a Feminist movement that hates men. Some of the changes to the law that I have seen (and yes, I am in a legal profession!) strengthen spurious claims against men, by women. So many of the cases that it appears gbaji is arguing are like that.

Personally the woman who has sex rather than being left could only claim rape under some extra-ordinary circumstances in my book...and no, fear of attack from a third party as its late at night is NOT good enough.

edit: clean-up of quotes and {{ editorial }}.

Edited, Mon Aug 29 23:51:55 2005 by JohnDoe
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#184 Aug 29 2005 at 11:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
JohnDoe wrote:
I'm with you gbaji.....

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf states:

[quote]A second type of serious problem ensues from the way in which LDF seeks to reconstruct the legal import of the womans consent. If a man brings forth a gun or knife, regardless of whether the womanthen verbally agrees to intercourse, her behavior would presumably be that of someone under duress. Hence, the mans guilt would be a proper inference in the factfinders determination. Problems arise, however, when the situation is consistent with two opposite meanings, e.g., no weapon, but the pair are alone in the woods. {{bingo!!}} Perhaps the silent woman is afraid to object; perhaps her consent is unvoiced. Many of the cases that LDF points to as horrible miscarriages of justice fall into this latter scenario. However, such a characterization of these cases rests on the assumption that the womans complaint is valid. Absent this unsupported assumption, one could readily infer either consent or non-consent. Provided the mans testimony is plausible, however, it is difficult without further evidence, such as how they got there or their prior amorous interactions, to determine whether there is consent, much less to infer guilt. This is the underlying reason that the elements of rape are defined so narrowly e.g., requiring force.
Again, none of this shows a legal case where such a thing is actually going on. In fact, it says that such things are NOT legally rape, a fact which some feminists call "horrible miscarriages of justice". I didn't read the source material for the section (though Destabilizing Power in Rape: Why Consent Theory in Rape Law Is Turned on Its Head doesn't exactly sound non-biased) but this section is the author's complaints about feminists and what constitutes rape. That's all. The paper is an opinion piece about how the radical feminist movement* want to change rape law, it's not a legal document.

Again, you can't argue that there's a been a legal change without citing a law. No legal or medical site I looked at included the above in its definition. None of them included any sort of "threat of abandonment". While there are indeed people who think such a thing is rape, it's NOT part of the mainstream medical communities and it's NOT supported by the legal system.

*Per additional research on what "dominance theory feminism" entails which was:
Radical or dominance feminism, like cultural feminism, arose in large part as a response to the perceived inadequacies in liberal feminist theory. Catherine MacKinnon, the major proponent of dominance theory, argues with cultural feminists that men and women are different; however, unlike cultural feminists, she argues that these differences largely reflect the fact that in society women are subordinate and men are dominant.


Edited, Tue Aug 30 01:00:46 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Aug 30 2005 at 12:26 AM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
Heh, told you I'd read the whole article...

Careful. Your bias is showing.

The whole point of the article actually shows a cultural drift and changes in the law as called for by a particular branch of society and lays them out for analysis, and shows both right and wrong points.

You wanted hard evidence, and here it is. Unfortunately you don't like it, and seek to undermine its relevance by decrying its value or undermining it, just because it doesn't fit into your world view.....

This was gbaji's arguement, which is increasingly being backed up, sorry!!

edit: re-read your post, and the point to which you refer IS DIRECTLY related to our arguments in that:

Once one removes these parameters, the definition of the felony becomes wildly over-inclusive. For instance, if consent required express verbal speech acts on the part of the woman, there would probably be hundreds of times as many acts defined as rape as there are today. Only after a cultural change in which such verbal statements become effectively universal would it make sense to use silenceor even rhetorical "nos" as one per se element of the felony.

Which is the whole crux of the matter.

Also, the points which you point out are NOT rape are precisely the ones which Gbaji says are not rape, and where I agree with gbaji!! Thanks!

Edited, Tue Aug 30 01:49:46 2005 by JohnDoe
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#186 Aug 30 2005 at 12:37 AM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
as per further research:

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/downloads/working_papers/sps07_nw.doc

http://www.fathersforlife.org/fbi_rape_stats.htm

http://www.fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/debunkingDV.htm#RapeRape.


Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually

Actual statistics:

A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]

BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year.

Still convinced there are no legal ramifications to the feminism I posted about above.

Feel free to (try) and argue your way out of the figures I've found.....please!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Society/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,820693,00.html

http://www.nycagainstrape.org/survivors_legal.html

{{This to me is a clear-cut change in the law.....}}

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=53&id=199352005

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761564013__1/Rape_(law).html

{{This actually does seem to give a decent definition to acquaintance rape, among others}}

http://www.met.police.uk/sapphire/press_articles/loophole.htm

{{ There we go, clear evidence of a law change}}

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/news/story.phtml?id=4189

{{Evidence in UK that date-rape drugs are not so prevalent as first thought}}

http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm

{{Look at the statistics in Part IV....that is truly worrying about the state of CURRENT LAW}}

edit: couple extra links and stuff


Edited, Tue Aug 30 02:29:43 2005 by JohnDoe
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#187 Aug 30 2005 at 1:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
JohnDoe wrote:
BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year.

Still convinced there are no legal ramifications to the feminism I posted about above.

Feel free to (try) and argue your way out of the figures I've found.....please!


I really just wanted to let this thread die but I have to pipe in for just a second here. I think "potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year" is a bit over the top.

Excuse me for not checking this (mainly because I think this should be common sense) but I'm sure a very large portion of the remaining 520,000 allegations lacked the evidence for a conviction. This does not mean that they were false allegations.

I am not trying to refute anything you are saying in that post, you were kind of getting on Joph about being biased and if you want to remain objective conjecture is not your friend.

Edited, Tue Aug 30 02:30:26 2005 by NaturalDisaster
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#188 Aug 30 2005 at 1:36 AM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
They are not my figures, they are figures cited by the link they appear below....

530,000 allegations are made, and 15,000 are convicted.

1/3 are found after the fact, to be unsafe convictions.

So, even ignoring the more sensational aspects of the numbers there are still 5000 men imprisoned a year, later found to be innocent.

Again, these are cited figures and I would have to dig further to get extra corroboration.
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#189 Aug 30 2005 at 1:47 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Smiley: confused

Yeah, my post wasn't about those 5,000 at all.

Smiley: confused

____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#190 Aug 30 2005 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,528 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, you have me wondering if you understand what the word "nonconsensual" means. Because there's nothing to indicate that any judge would take "had sex to go to cool parties and regretted it later" as nonconsensual.

But he had such a good strawman set up! Claim that new rape laws allow "regret" to equal "rape," and then burn that motherfu[b][/b]cker to the ground!


____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#191 Aug 30 2005 at 2:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
JohnDoe wrote:
Feel free to (try) and argue your way out of the figures I've found.....please!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Society/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,820693,00.html

http://www.nycagainstrape.org/survivors_legal.html

{{This to me is a clear-cut change in the law.....}}
The first reads that drunk/drugged women can't give consent. The second gives definitions of rape which all include force, threat of force or inability to give consent due to drugs/alcohol, medical conditions, etc.

One of these is going to say that "regret after the fact" is rape, right? Before I waste more of my time?

Quote:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=53&id=199352005

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761564013__1/Rape_(law).html

{{This actually does seem to give a decent definition to acquaintance rape, among others}}
The first is a group in Scotland wanting the trial process reviewed after the number of convictions dropped to an all-time low. The second is an article already discussed at length here and which, again, failed to support "regret" as a definition of rape.

Quote:
http://www.met.police.uk/sapphire/press_articles/loophole.htm

{{ There we go, clear evidence of a law change}}
A proposed law change. I already noted it back on page 1 or 2.
Maybe it passed but it's about the same as your first link: a drunk/drugged woman can not give consent.

Quote:
http://www.menshealth.co.uk/news/story.phtml?id=4189

{{Evidence in UK that date-rape drugs are not so prevalent as first thought}}
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with "regret" meeting a legal definition of rape.

Quote:
http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm

{{Look at the statistics in Part IV....that is truly worrying about the state of CURRENT LAW}}
Wow.. you mean:
For current purposes, the term acquaintance rape will be defined as being subjected to unwanted sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or other sexual contact through the use of force or threat of force. Unsuccessful attempts are also subsumed within the term "rape." Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual intercourse, or any other sexual contact subsequent to the use of menacing verbal pressure or misuse of authority (Koss, 1988).?

Yeah.. that sure did define rape as "consensual sex with regrets later". Showed me good. Hey, let me grab a bunch of random links about rape that have nothing to do with the topic as well!

Edited, Tue Aug 30 03:59:12 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Aug 30 2005 at 2:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
JohnDoe wrote:
The whole point of the article actually shows a cultural drift and changes in the law as called for by a particular branch of society and lays them out for analysis, and shows both right and wrong points.
'The hell? If I find an article talking about how a group of people want to restart Prohibition, that means there's a "cultural drift and change in the law" towards making alcohol illegal?

Quote:
Also, the points which you point out are NOT rape are precisely the ones which Gbaji says are not rape
Except I'm not claiming that anyone else is calling them rape nor that you will be convicted of rape for doing them.

Did you even read the first couple of pages to this thread?

Anyway, this has been a hoot but a week of this is a little too much. Until I see the law I've asked for, I'm done with this topic. My time is too valuable to spend chasing every link you can come up with when you Google "rape" and, seeing how much time I spend around here, that's saying a lot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Aug 30 2005 at 3:31 AM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
Yes I have EVERY thread, and I had read the posted links too.

You can't be bothered to take the time and effort? Well GFY.

If you had taken the time and effort to understand what I post, you would see exactly the point I was making about cultural drift is exactly the same as Gbaji's with the whole "date rape" phenomenon.....ppl actively changing society and its laws.

Your point about prohobition would be valid if it were a strong enough political and legal lobby, so yes.

You attacked my argument, I defended it, and still do.
Many, many new cases of rape are being taken to court, and many, many more are being thrown out.

Many, many cases are rape. Many of them aren't and if you take the time and effort, you would see a drift occurring, in the UK if no-where else, where there is a lessening of the burden of proof that the crime took place, and more burden on the alledged defendant to prove he was innocent.

This was the purpose of the OP, and mine, and in a large part gbaji.

You snipe and snipe and snipe at someone for not posting hard data, or relevant links.

You then attack me when I pull up a ream of information.

Once again, you don't like the facts? Tough. GFY.

You obviously didn't understand my point I never said anywhere that regret=rape. The point I was trying to make was that the feminist lobby "convince" a whole load of college-types who gave consent at some point in an encounter that they had been "raped". The end of my post showed that they could legally and truthfully say that consent hadn't occurred RETROACTIVELY. It isn't regret, but it is as close as dammit is to swearing. To recap:
Quote:
Eliminating any mens rea requirement would surely raise the
conviction rate toward the ninety-eight percent benchmark. By definition, if the woman testified at trial that she currently believes that she did not contemporaneously consent, the man would have to be found guilty.

This is exactly what is being called for by a powerful lobby group.

You obviously missed the entire point of my post.....you wanted law changes and stuff, and the scary stuff in point IV was about how many ppl actually said that they had stuff pointed out to them which was rape.....

At no point did I EVER declare rape=regret.....
My point is that women are using the law to cry rape when they do have regret (ie not raped, wish they had'nt been to bed with someone hence no trauma at all) this was the OP, and what others were saying.

gbaji said
Quote:
Geez. I didn't think it was that amazingly controversial of a statement to make. Seemed obvious to me that changes in our laws about rape charges would be the cause of changes in false accusation of rape. Silly me for making such a basic observation...


and I'm backing it up....

Learn to actually differetiate between different posters. Please. Regret doesn't = rape.

Regret CAN = spurious rape ALLEGATION.....that's what has been bloody argued. Ad Infinitum. Ad Nauseum.
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#194 Aug 30 2005 at 3:38 AM Rating: Decent
*
112 posts
To clear up any confusions this is the scary part:
Quote:
IV. Research Findings

The research of Koss and her colleagues has served as the foundation of many of the investigations on the prevalence, circumstances, and aftermath of acquaintance rape within the past dozen or so years. The results of this research have served to create an identity and awareness of the problem. Equally as important has been the usefulness of this information in creating prevention models. Koss acknowledges that there are some limitations to the research. The most significant drawback is that her subjects were drawn exclusively from college campuses; thus, they were not representative of the population at large. The average age of the subjects was 21.4 years. By no means does this negate the usefulness of the findings, especially since the late teens and early twenties are the peak ages for the prevalence of acquaintance rape. The demographic profile of the 3,187 female and 2,972 male students in the study was similar to the makeup of the overall enrollment in higher education within the United States. Here are some of the most important statistics:


Prevalence

One in four women surveyed was victim of rape or attempted rape.
An additional one in four women surveyed was touched sexually against her will or was victim of sexual coercion.
84 percent of those raped knew their attacker.
57 percent of those rapes happened while on dates.
One in twelve male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definitions of rape or attempted rape.
84 percent of those men who committed rape said that what they did was definitely not rape.
Sixteen percent of the male students who committed rape and ten percent of those who attempted a rape took part in episodes involving more than one attacker.

Responses of the Victim

Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.
42 percent of the rape victims did not tell anyone about their assaults.
Only five percent of the rape victims reported the crime to the police.
Only five percent of the rape victims sought help at rape-crisis centers.
Whether they had acknowledged their experience as a rape or not, thirty percent of the women identified as rape victims contemplated suicide after the incident.
82 percent of the victims said that the experience had permanently changed them.


This was included because I find Rape vile and downright diabolical. It was included to show that it is prevalent and nasty, as a counterpoint to other arguments. Pity that when I point out the relevant piece in the link, Joph couldn't be assed to scroll down to find it....

I also think that a woman who cries rape knowing she wasn't but had regrets about an encounter just as bad, as that destroys lives just as much for two reasons:
1) Destroys accused life or reputation.
2) Weakens genuine rape cases.
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
#195 Aug 30 2005 at 3:57 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,528 posts

Well I don't want to be accused of being Joph's errand boy, but quoting this one last time for posterity. It's what caused all the hullabaloo, not anything about "societal drifts."

gbaji wrote:
What "date rape" is, is when a woman has sex with someone but says she didn't really want to.



____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#196 Aug 30 2005 at 4:20 AM Rating: Decent
**
608 posts
Errand boy...
____________________________
Only the mediocre are always at their best.


#197 Aug 30 2005 at 5:03 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,227 posts
I'm just going to say to all the men out there arguing what's going on in a womans mind (you've never known what we were thinking before, what makes you think you can understand this?): most of us love sex. Most of us are not trying to "cry rape" in order to get back at some man that wronged us.

Women that do cry rape are bad, and the rest of us are not behind her, cheering "You go, girl!"

And yes, quite a lot of women have been subjected to date rape, and it wasn't just "morning after regret". Usually we just regret the fact that we knew the guy that put us in that position in the first place.

can this thread end now? Sheesh.
#198 Aug 30 2005 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
****
5,310 posts
So, Nadenu, what's your favorite mix to put with vodka?

I sometimes like a vodka tonic in the summertime with a twist of lime. That's pretty refreshing, don't you think? When I was younger, I was a vodka sour gal & I guess I still sort of like that too.

When I'm feeling really festive I like a nice, dry martini, but it's no fun if it isn't served in a martini glass. Smiley: boozing
____________________________
"God created man from a handful of dust, and he created woman from that man's rib. And these two together were so stupid that they weren't on the planet five minutes when they managed to get a curse put on all future generations. Nice work." Pat Condell
#199 Aug 30 2005 at 8:12 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually


Smiley: lol I really need to grow up...

Nadenu wrote:
I'm just going to say to all the men out there arguing what's going on in a womans mind (you've never known what we were thinking before, what makes you think you can understand this?): most of us love sex. Most of us are not trying to "cry rape" in order to get back at some man that wronged us.

Women that do cry rape are bad, and the rest of us are not behind her, cheering "You go, girl!"

And yes, quite a lot of women have been subjected to date rape, and it wasn't just "morning after regret". Usually we just regret the fact that we knew the guy that put us in that position in the first place.


Smiley: yippee My God what a great post.
____________________________
~Chand/KindOfLost

#200 Aug 30 2005 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
JohnDoe wrote:
You then attack me when I pull up a ream of information.
Well, maybe if even 70% of those links pertained to the matter at hand...
Quote:
To recap:
Eliminating any mens rea requirement would surely raise the
conviction rate toward the ninety-eight percent benchmark. By definition, if the woman testified at trial that she currently believes that she did not contemporaneously consent, the man would have to be found guilty.

This is exactly what is being called for by a powerful lobby group.
Ah, we've gone from bona fide changes in the law to things some group is asking for. This quote is, again, from an opinion piece on what the "dominance theory" feminist movement is looking for. It's a hypothetical brought up by the author. You still fail to show where anyone in the medical/legal community is responding to this definition but, since a subsect of feminists (or, in your words, a "powerful lobby") are asking for it, to you it shows a change.
Quote:
You obviously missed the entire point of my post.....you wanted law changes and stuff, and the scary stuff in point IV was about how many ppl actually said that they had stuff pointed out to them which was rape.....
But the law already expresses a requirement for force or threat of force. Even the law you linked had that onus. The site with the Sec. IV said it was nonconsensual. The numbers in Sec. IV show that men should educate themselves on what is legally rape; it doesn't show any slippery slope.
Quote:
My point is that women are using the law to cry rape when they do have regret (ie not raped, wish they had'nt been to bed with someone hence no trauma at all) this was the OP, and what others were saying.
No one ever argued that point. There was some discussion about how to treat these false reports but no one in the thread once claimed that there were not malicious false reports. The bulk of this discussion was over Gbaji's claim quoted by Tricky a few posts above.

Anyway, I'm done. Come back, post your links, say you're right.. whichever. A week of this is too much for me.

Edited, Tue Aug 30 09:48:49 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Aug 30 2005 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
*
112 posts
Thank you for showing you missed the relevant points of my post.

It doesn't matter what your post count is if you don't actually read what others say.

Ok, the whole discussion element you refer to was what gbaji posted earlier....he then goes into more detail about what he is saying.

I jump in, offer supporting evidence etc, and you ignore that all as not being relevant to your earlier dismissal of the post.

Ok...you point out in your post that it's all about a powerful lobby group and changes to the law that they want. The point I was making with that material (being a law-reform document) was to highlight current thinking.

I then also point out in one of my earlier links that if we go out drinking, and meet a girl and engage in consensual sex...legally AS IT STANDS NOW it doesn't matter if she consented. Being intoxicated now means that she is INCAPABLE OF CONSENT. Therefore, if she so wishes she now has a rape claim which is meeting the legal definition. This is was Gbaji was talking about, this is a change in the law (no force required, no struggle, plenty of regret for last nights sex etc).

Quote:
Women who are drunk or under the influence of drugs will automatically be regarded as unable to give consent to sex, as part of an overhaul of the law on rape to be announced next month.


That was the first paragraph of the first link. This is NOW LAW not proposed change.

The point you seem to miss with this is that the law deems any alcoholic consumption to invalidate consent, as it now cannot be given, so that romantic meal with the glass of wine with your S.O. is enough, to make a man a rapist under the current legal definition. You don't regard this as being a huge swing in terms of law?? I sure do!

Quote:
LDF proponents have asserted that incidents in which the victim herself has not labeled the experience a rape can be validly criminalized

{From LDF originally posted}

Then, with the changes in law the Part IV stats show:
Quote:
Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.


This isn't about educating men. This is about women now being able to use sex as a weapon.

You can attack my posts as much as you want Joph. Just because you don't like my arguments doesn't mean you can dismiss them out of hand. You wanted proof, you got it. You don't understand it? Not my problem. You don't like it? Tough.

Trying to pull it to pieces and destroy it piecemeal will work against someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.

I do however, and there are quite obvious changes to the law, that I have pointed to. There are quite obvious societial changes - it was not so long ago that Domestic Violence was on the radar.

It just so happens that I'm not arguing anything controversial, just that there has been a change in the law lowering the standard of proof.
____________________________
Loquax Antiloquax
35rd Song Bard
Yarwend Bristlebeard
38th Level Warrior
Darbendil
55th Level Druid
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Jophiel, tribalfusion009, Anonymous Guests (43)